Jel

system 1:

-AMD FX 4100 @ 3.6GHz x 4
-8GB DDR3 1,333MHz Crucial RAM
-1TB 7,200RPM Seagate Barracuda HDD
-Samsung/Writemaster DVD/RW x24
-Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
-ECS A960M-MV Motherboard
-Multi Format Card Reader

system 2:
Processor (CPU)
AMD A4-5300 Dual Core APU (3.4GHz) & Radeon™ HD 7480D Graphics


Motherboard
ASUS® A55BM-E FM2+ (M-ATX, DDR3, USB 3.0, 6Gb/s)


Memory (RAM)
8GB KINGSTON DUAL-DDR3 1600MHz (1 x 8GB)


Graphics Card
Integrated AMD Radeon HD 7000 Series Graphics


Memory - 1st Hard Disk
500GB 3.5" SATA-III 6GB/s HDD 7200RPM 16MB CACHE


Memory Card Reader
INTERNAL 52 IN 1 CARD READER (XD, MS, CF, SD, etc) + 1 x USB 2.0 PORT


Power Supply
CORSAIR 350W VS SERIES™ VS-350 POWER SUPPLY


Processor Cooling
Super Quiet 22dBA Triple Copper Heatpipe AMD CPU Cooler (£19)


Sound Card
ONBOARD 8 CHANNEL (7.1) HIGH DEF AUDIO (AS STANDARD)

========================================
obviously 1 has a larger HDD than the other, that's not an issue, what I'm more focused on is which is better in terms of faster/powerfuller. system 2 is about $40 more, but has no dvd so I assume is the better machine, if anyone can steer me in the right direction it'd be much appreciated, thanks

I don't do masses of it, but the machine will be used for a little bit of video editing, and typically I have open and running at any one time, if it has any bearing:

firefox 5 - 9 tabs
chrome 1 - 2 tabs
open office 2 - 5 calc sheets
email client (damn just realised I'm gonna lose outlook express as well as windows movie maker )
remote desktop
statsremote in the background
4 - 8 notepad files
winscp ftp
windows media player for my choons :D

thanks

bronco67

They're both AMD, so you lose whatever choice you make.

__________________

edgeprod

I wouldn't buy a machine with less than 12GB of RAM at a very minimum, man.

Jel

edge: even though I do little video editing at all, and zero gaming? Got xp atm and although I'd like a little more RAM just because, I have all those processes open with no real problems at all (and a html editor, forgot to include that). RAM is easy enough to add, so from those two, which is the better? I can switch to 12Gb easy enough instead of 8

bronco: isn't that these days more personal preference? Like android vs ios, kinda? I appreciate intel is superior, but as a non-gamer, non-video editor, will I really gain a lot from going with intel over AMD?

Jel

This is what I currently use up, and what I have open/running 95% of the time, if it's any help:





As I've said many times previously, I'm seriously tech-challenged lol, so dunno if that's even relevant

MK Ultra

weak









I usually have 16 gigs of ram but one stick seems to have stopped working

__________________

Jel

weak in what way mate? I'm clueless, so don't even know what I'm looking at with those images

Jel

actually, if anyone can clarify which of the 2 in the OP is better, and if there's any real difference between the two performance-wise, that will at least let me know which custom supplier to use

JimmyStephans

It is really hard to say exactly which is better because that would depend on exactly what you are using it for.

Example: #1 doesn't mention the video card or chip. These days lots of processing of images and video is done by the chip on video card and not by the main processor.

Example #2 It mentioned video in the line "Radeon™ HD 7480D Graphics" but that is a tiny chip built on the processor, not a dedicated card. Better than some, not awesome.

If I had to select I would take the second one (as long as it is Windows 7, which I prefer right now).

But, neither is a fast machine. I really suggest searching a bit more and finding a machine with an Intel processor. In same price range they just run better. See chart on this page:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ck,3106-6.html

That is a "gaming" review but remember that processing is processing. To run games, edit video and other things, you need four basics to be good. CPU, GPU, RAM and disks.

In March I purchased 2 machines based on the Intel i5-3570 and we like them. Both came with 8GB RAM, we boosted to 16GB. One was on sale at Micro Center (Power Spec House Brand) for only $575 but had average video so I got a decent add-on card for $100 more. The other I got from CyberPower but through Amazon.com sale (premade system) and it had good video card and was about $850

So, for under $1000 you can get better than what you listed. The AMD CPU is just not the thing these days (but AMD Radeon Video chips and cards are good)

__________________
http://TrueBabes.com/

vdbucks

Tell me your absolute maximum budget and I'll spec you a system to get the most bang for your buck. If you buy it from newegg (or similar) Im pretty sure they'll assemble and test it for you before shipping.

edit: just checked and newegg doesn't assemble for you so that's out I guess... tell me your max budget anyway and I'll see what I can find as far as an off the shelf system goes

bronco67

AMD ghz is slower clock for clock than Intel of the same rated speed. It may be cheaper, but faster is better because:

Time = money.

But you're only saving a little more money by buying AMD, so why not get the best instead? Do some research and you'll see Intel is better. Math supports my argument.

__________________

PornDiscounts-V

#1 is a LOT better.

Look them up here: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Solely by passmark on each the difference is 2 fold between them. #1 is 100% faster than #2.

#2 is dual core while number one is quad core. That is a big factor. #1 also probably has larger caches.

__________________

PornDiscounts-V

I looked them up... and the L2 cache on the #1 is 4mb while it is 1mb on #2. That is another huge reason it is so much better.

As for the video in the APU (#2)... it sucks as well! It would be very shitty. It would have a hard time just playing flash videos or banner ads here at GFY.

__________________

Jel

awesome, thanks so much guys

UK here so everything is more expensive I believe - those 2 I posted in the OP run at ~£400 each ($680-ish). I did have a very quick look at intel based, and iirc it jumped the price up by about $300. I don't really want to spend more than £500 ($850) *if I can help it*, but I really am clueless, so went down in price to AMD, rather than up in price for intel. I guess my limit would be $500 inc. VAT, which is that $850, though get less bang for my buck I believe, being in the UK.

spec 1: http://stores.ebay.co.uk/JWEnterprise - rang these and specified at least 3Ghz, 8Gb, win7, 1Tb HDD (though tbh 500Gb is plenty for what I use), and multi-card reader, and that's what they came back with (afaik, and on the phone convo I had, they can put together a machine)

spec 2: https://www.pcspecialist.co.uk - kinda guessed shit and put it together lol, and ended up with what I put in the OP

vdbucks

http://www.ebuyer.com/570072-zoostor...p-pc-7873-0485

The only downside is onboard graphics but to be honest, the HD 4600 will most likely suit you perfectly fine given the info in your original post.

Jel

bit more than what I want to pay really ($1020), and I see it has windows 8, which I definitely 100% don't want. The graphics card, while I think of it though, can I use my current one? Here's the belarc infos thingo on my current system if it's any help:

3.00 gigahertz Intel Core2 Quad
64 kilobyte primary memory cache
6144 kilobyte secondary memory cache
64-bit ready
Multi-core (4 total)

Board: ASUSTeK Computer INC. P5N73-AM 2.XX
Bus Clock: 333 megahertz
BIOS: Phoenix Technologies, LTD ASUS P5N73-AM ACPI BIOS Revision 0501 11/28/2008

3328 Megabytes Usable Installed Memory
Slot 'DIMM1' has 2048 MB
Slot 'DIMM2' has 2048 MB

NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT [Display adapter]

think I got this in 2007 so it's pretty old, I realise

vdbucks

The onboard intel hd 4600 will do you better than the 9600gt would.

And windows 8.1 isn't bad at all. I'm not going to turn this into a debate about that but once you get past the initial learning curve, I bet you'll find it's actually not nearly as bad as people claim.

Nonetheless, if you can provide your own OS then: http://www.ebuyer.com/570082-zoostor...p-pc-7873-1206

vdbucks

Here's another one: http://www.aria.co.uk/Systems/Home+a...roductId=56219

£569.99 inc. VAT

Jel

thanks mate, will have a closer butcher's at those tomorrow when I'm not so knackered - really appreciate your time in finding those for me

Jel

is this the exact same machine just with win 7?
http://www.ebuyer.com/570065-zoostor...p-pc-7873-0495

vdbucks

Looks like it, yeah.

Jel

ok cool, so which is the better one out of

http://www.aria.co.uk/Systems/Home+a...roductId=56219

and

http://www.ebuyer.com/570065-zoostor...p-pc-7873-0495

DamianJ

For what you want, just get a Dell man. You don't need a custom supplier.

The one thing I would make sure of is that you get an SSD. Get like a 256 one for the system and then have a non SSD for all your files.

JimmyStephans

If I could pick between those two I would get this one:

http://www.ebuyer.com/570065-zoostor...p-pc-7873-0495

Better processor, 16GB RAM and better HD. It also has an open expansion slot so it later you wish to drop a better video and power supply.

Thats if you had to pick between those two. But, like Damian is saying... they are real basic systems. Spending a bit more for SSD and better video makes a huge difference in speed.

__________________
http://TrueBabes.com/

vdbucks

Well, it really depends. The ebuyer one has a better cpu and more memory, the aria one trades cpu power and memory for an ssd.

If it were me (assuming I'd ever buy a pre-built machine in the first place, which I wouldn't unless I go off the deep end one day and buy a Mac) and I had to choose between the 2, I'd choose the ebuyer one simply because the price:performance ratio is higher.

And I can always add an ssd and dedicated gpu later, so I'd choose more cpu & memory over an ssd any day since the cost to add an ssd would be far lower overall (consider that upgrading your cpu leaves you with the old cpu which is wasted money whereas adding an ssd still allows you to use the other HDD as a storage drive, in this case).

A Dell is out of his price range and he'd get lower performance but higher cost than the 2 options I listed (according to what I found on the Dell UK site anyway).

For his uses, the HD 4600 graphics would suit him just fine, considering he currently has an old 9600 GT. But having the option to upgrade later is always nice (which he could do with either system since they both have one available pci-e x16 slot).

Also, a better psu doesn't exactly increase performance, so long as the psu provides enough power for all the components. The only real benefit of a better psu is power efficiency. But to be blunt, those considerations kind of go out the window when talking budget systems, unless you're willing to build your own, which isn't difficult at all and is what I personally recommend.

JimmyStephans

Ah, I sort of mis-spoke. The reason I mentioned better power supply was because I was thinking the newer video card would need it (not that the supply itself would increase performance).

I think we have answered his questions and its time to buy and report back to us...

Cheers

__________________
http://TrueBabes.com/

Jel

yeah gonna go for that zoostorm one, which I'm sure is gonna be more than capable of performing what I do on a daily basis - huge thanks to everyone for their help, it really is very much appreciated

Babaganoosh

__________________
I like pie.

2MuchMark

You can't go wrong investing a little extra in your computer. Buy LOTS of Ram (16GB Minimum) and fast hard disk 2TB at least, a fast video card that supports multiple monitors at the same time for extended desktops, etc etc. Stick with Intel CPU's.

If you plan to do video rendering, Graphics, Conversions, Editing etc, get a system with a fast, multi-core system. The faster your CPU, the less time you spend waiting for your computer to render.

A big, fast, local hard disk means all of your work and files are always online and fast to find, vs an external drive. Get a hard disk with built-in cash. If you can afford it, use an SSD Hard drive as your primary boot drive + a second normal hard disk. VERY fast, but $$.

Don't cheap-out the graphics card. Here again you want super-fast GPU's and as much ram as it will support.

Finally, lots of RAM in your computer means your computer will spend less time reading and writing temporary files to your hard disk which is slow compared to ram. Heavy programs such as photoshop and various video editors operate much faster and smoother on machines with proper ram. 16GB recommended.

__________________

Custom Coding | Videochat Solutions | Age Verification | IT Help & Support
www.2Much.net

Jel

I video edit about 3 minutes worth a month

photoshop: never, don't own it

paintshop pro: once or twice a week I need to put text on a single image

OP has pretty much what I do daily, and it isn't that slow at all even on this old 4gb of ram xp machine - that zoostorm one is easily gonna cover what my tasks are

Sly

Not sure why so many 16 GB of RAM comments, that's $160 out of the budget that clearly is not needed. Get a motherboard that can handle 16 GB, buy it later if you ever need it. I have 4 computers ranging up to 2 years old, they all support 16 GB.

Put the money where you actually need/want it.

__________________
Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted

Windows VPS now available
Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc.
Click here for more details.

Chosen

New AMD CPU's are faster than old Intel ones. New Intel CPU's are pretty much expensive, so I'd say go with AMD.
#1 from your initial post looks like a better choice.